Tillman #324495 v. Huss et al
Filing
109
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 108 ; granting motion for summary judgment 86 ; denying motion for Rule 56(f) continuance 99 ; certifying that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:13-cv-297
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JOSEPH NOVAK, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Rutgers
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 86). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rule 56(f) Continuance
(Dkt 99).
The matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation on August 6, 2015, recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s motion, deny
Plaintiff’s motion, and terminate this matter. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on
the parties. No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 108) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Rutgers’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt
86) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 56(f) Continuance (Dkt 99)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206,
211-12 (2007).
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.
Dated: August 31, 2015
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?